Destructive decisions --- Youths caught 'in the act' on Internet

Metro West Daily News ^ | 08/03/03 | Andrew Ravens

[prairiebreeze]

How very sad. Alcohol destroys countless lives both directly and indirectly. IMO, the liquor industry doesn't get held to account NEARLY enough for the destruction caused by the product it manufactures and glamorizes. Prairie

[Trailerpark Badass]

Gately adamantly said he only spoke out because he was concerned with the safety of his peers, although he said he was a "troublemaker" in middle school and is regularly picked on in high school.

Uh huh.

Gee, teenagers drinking and fooling around. Who knew?!

[Windsong]

"How very sad. Alcohol destroys countless lives both directly and indirectly. IMO, the liquor industry doesn't get held to account NEARLY enough for the destruction caused by the product it manufactures and glamorizes"

Put on your armor, for the Libertarians (i.e. Liberals) are about to descend upon you...

[prairiebreeze]

Bring it on

Prairie

[Pest]

Alcohol Guns destroys countless lives both directly and indirectly. IMO, the liquor gun industry doesn't get held to account NEARLY enough for the destruction caused by the product it manufactures and glamorizes.

Sounds kinda silly when you insert some other LEGAL product in there doesn't it?

[prairiebreeze]

You are comparing apples to elephants. Guns aren't advertised in colorful, sexy, eye-catchigng full page ad's in shopping market aisle magazines, nor do the sports channels run multiple commercials per event trying to tempt you to guzzle down a gun.

Are you saying guns are a substance, subject to addiction and abuse like booze is? That sounds silly to me.

If McDonalds can be taken to court for coffee that's too hot (and lose) and Burger King et al. be made to put healthier alternatives on their food wrappers, it seems to me that liquor industry should be made to own it's responsibility for the destruction it's product causes. The bland "warning" that appears on liquor labels just doesnt' cut it.

Prairie

[Pest]

I was just using guns as an example that would attract attention. Maybe you are right that it's not the best example.

However, do you really want to hold manufacturers responsible for the misuse of their product? It doesn't matter what product it is.

I guess you would like to eliminate any remaining semblance of personal responsibility in our society.

Just let the government (or the lawyers) handle it. They know what's best. </sarcasm>

[eno_]

Not to mention that the kid who ran into the statie was a known drunk with multiple and should have been sentenced to rehab already. There is a big difference between policing parties and failing to take a known drunk off the road.

[TheOtherOne]

liquor industry doesn't get held to account NEARLY enough for the destruction caused by the product it manufactures and glamorizes.

Funny, I use the alcohol I buy as recommmended, and have found no destructive effects.

What is a 'fair accounting' for the liquor industry that you would like to see?

[eno_]

The other view would be that government should just butt the hell out of our hamburgers, guns, AND smokes. Like they have nothing better to do.

[JakeWyld]

So lets go after the alchohol industry when the whole article reads like a manual of bad parenting.

You just wanted to start an argument with this BS you posted.

Well, you got it. Don't be such a tool to advertising. Just because something is glamorized doesn't make it a good thing. However, since you are unable to resist advertising you want it stopped.

find yourself a democratic website. They are much more sympathetic to your views of social control.

[JakeWyld]

I will be interested to see the reply to your question.

[JakeWyld]

This is really what this is all about isn't it.

[BlackbirdSST]

I see you're not a Personal Responsibility kind of Conservative, are you? Blackbird.

[prairiebreeze]

Sorry to keep you all waiting but earning a living has to take priority to Freeping sometimes. A word to all: I’m not yelling with my capitalization for emphasis. I’m at work and without the time to use FR’s html for italic emphasis. I AM yelling about the responsibility of the liquor industry pertaining to the problems surrounding alcohol though. Because of the illegal/legal issues I won’t address drugs on this thread and I am limiting this response to booze.

Pest—manufacturers ARE being held responsible for their products. I’ll admit here and now I’m no fan of the tobacco industry or the liquor industry. I suppose it’s true that there’s nothing worse than a quitter and I am a quitter of both. I also work in a profession that allows me to see and hear first hand, over and over the devastation caused by alcohol. I believe that State Trooper Ellen Engelhardt and her family would likely, at this minute feel they fit that category. So would Strom Thurmonds family (daughter killed by drunk driver), George McGovern’s family and thousands upon thousands of others. Which is what actually triggered my anti-booze industry response in the first place. A stance I am comfortable with. But lets move on.

You mention personal responsibility and I couldn’t agree more that it is a requirement in just about every decision we make and a HUGE factor when it comes to substances, guns, caloric intake etc. And I am gratified to see it when those that choose poorly and cause death and suffering are held responsible. I just question why it stops there?? Why is it OK to sue a bartender or bar owner for selling too many drinks or not stopping in time when an accident subsequently occurs and yet not hold big booze industry to account? That doesn’t add up. Except it DOES when the over $100 billion annual industry gross and lobbying efforts of The Beer Institute, The Wine Institute, the Distilled Spirits Council are considered. I have a source with some FASCINATING statistics of $$ amounts next to politicians names of those receiving Political Action Committee and Individual contributions in the 1997-1998 election cycle, both Republicans and Democrats. A bit dated, yes, and it would be interesting to see more current statistics. If people are interested they can let me know and I will TRY to post them or even research more current stats but for now, and before I need to return to work I need to address other issues with other Freepers. BTW I’m no friend of the Trial Lawyers Assoc. or ridiculous civil suits either. Call it a personal predicament of mine.

The Other One: I guess I’d call you more fortunate than many others I know and have worked with to be able to follow the “directions” (and I use that term so loosely it can barely grab onto the page) on booze labels and suffer no ill effects. Millions of individuals in society can’t. And it isn’t because of poor will-power or weak moral character either. I invite you to read any current research on alcoholism if you need to find out current biochemical/neurophysiolocal theories about the occurrence of the medical condition of alcoholism. AND LET ME BE CLEAR: in no way am I trying to cut a break to alcoholics so they can continue to drink. To date the only way to treat alcoholism is to put it into remission, through complete and total abstinence. An addicted person cannot drink. End of story. And choosing to do so is for that person, a very poor choice. But it’s important also to realize that when the substance of alcohol is active in the brain of an addicted OR IMPAIRED person, “choice” just isn’t a very present phenomena. Certainly it was (and frequently is) the case in teenage drinking as illustrated here. As to a “fair accounting”, I’d like to see MUCH more $$ spent by the booze industry into teen drinking prevention, genuine and effective awareness of the addictive qualities of their product and into treatment research. MUCH more $$. That would be a good start.

Jake Wyld: I agree with you that bad parenting was very likely a factor in the teenage aspects of this article. Possibly a big factor. In my original post stated I was responding in compassion to the victims of the alcohol. I include the parents of the teens as possible unwitting victims too, mindless though they may seem. And I have a teenager so have so experience in the role of parent. Dealing with them gives me some experience on which to draw.

Let me address the rest of your post which BTW, comes across as sputtering. Frankly Jake, “BS” is acknowledging the heartache and problems that go hand in hand with alcohol but being too chicken to actively name and acknowledge ALL the participants in the problem. Or perhaps a better bird to describe is an ostrich. Wake up. While it’s largely on the shoulders of the drinker, it doesn’t stop there, as much as you’d evidently like it to.

Alcohol is not the only industry I hold accountable for causing negative and criminal or fatal effects partly because of their mega-bucks advertising. I blame the cosmetic and fashion industries for glamorizing anorexia for instance. Advertising, like most other areas of media has RESPONSIBILITES that go along with all it’s rights. That the media clings fast to it’s rights but plays down or ignores it’s responsibilities should surprise no one on this forum.

And lastly, speaking about this forum, I am a conservative Freeper who despises the heartache, disease and suffering brought about by the products of the tobacco and liquor industries. Period. I stand firm on that stance. I’ve outlined several starting points I’d like to see the booze and even tobacco industry tackle and there are probably other’s I could think of and post about. I’ve also acknowledged own my own personal “dilemma”if you will; that I’m no fan of massive civil suits and trial lawyers either. Actually I rather like it about myself that I have areas that aren’t black and white, that I have to think and re-think issues. And I like and respect it in others too, as long as they respect my point of view. Which you obviously had trouble doing in your post. So Jake, You are either going to have to exercise your right of CHOICE and choose to not read my responses if you find them so offensive or you can get over it. Because I don’t plan on going anywhere thank you very much. Funny, I can’t seem to think of an alternate website to suggest to you.

Prairie

[prairiebreeze]

I will ammend my sentence about limiting the response to booze as I did enter tobacco in at the last of it. My heart spoke out I suppose. But what I am interested in and trying to do here is stating what is true for me. And constructive dialogue. Flamers can get a life.

Prairie

[JakeWyld]

I came across as "sputtering" because people like you piss me off. Sorry to be so frank, but I've been on this forum 3 years and I've been far to nice to control freaks like you.
I don't care how much "experience" you have relating to this topic. You'll have to deal with the truth of the matter and that is you are not going to tell me what to do simply becuase you don't like my choices.

I daresay, that even though you've seen alchohol related problems up close not every drinker is a problem waiting to happen. All I want to do is have a good time once and a while without people like you getting in a tizzy over it.

[TheOtherOne]

Thank you for a reply.

Basically you want them to pay money. While I am sure that good will come of it, I am not sure of the legal or other basis for them to pay. If we are to seek money from companies by looking at the resulting harm of their products, would likewise subject all of the Fast Food restaurants and Frito-lays & Hostess of the world to the same 'accounting'. Their products cause tremendous harm, why not them sponsor healthy eating. It becomes a slipperly slope when you ask companies to pay for the misuse or overuse of their products. Why stop at cigarettes, or alcohol? The reality is that all users will end up paying costs, which smacks of ..............

[prairiebreeze]

Actually, I'd like to see some of their advertising budget go for better things.

Prairie